Live demo

Vendor Questionnaire Summariser (Security + AI)

Extract what risk teams actually need from vendor docs: retention, regions, subprocessors, red flags, and follow-ups.

Structured extractionGovernanceEnterprise

Jump to demo

Drop a vendor AI/security excerpt — structured answers plus procurement follow-ups.

Technical notes

Claude generateObject + diligence schema at /api/demos/claude-vendor.

Vendor questionnaire summariser

Extract the fields risk teams actually need: regions, retention, subprocessors, red flags, follow-ups.

Live

Case studyArchitecture, governance, and how to adapt this pattern in a pilot

Business use case

Security questionnaires, model cards, and vendor FAQs are long and inconsistent. Risk teams need structured answers, explicit unknowns, and a tight list of follow-up questions.

Solution

Use structured extraction to produce a reusable assessment object (not a narrative). Pair with HITL approval before procurement sign-off.

Delivery playbookDiscovery → pilot → scale

1
Discovery2–4 wks
Define required diligence fields; collect sample vendor packs and common red flags.
2
Pilot6–8 wks
Extract structured assessments for 5 to 10 vendors; risk reviews unknowns and follow-ups.
3
Scaleongoing
Integrate with procurement workflow; enforce HITL sign-off before vendor approval.

Where else this appliesVendor diligence is a content problem: long docs, inconsistent claims, and missing fields. Structured extraction creates a reviewable object and a tight follow-up list.

AI procurement

Extract retention, training posture, and subprocessor lists from model vendors.

Security reviews

Normalize SOC2 / incident notification language for comparison.

Legal review prep

Surface ambiguous claims as red flags and questions.

Portfolio oversight

Track vendors by risk posture over time.

Claude performs well on long text packs. Pair with HITL sign-off and persist the structured assessment in your procurement workflow.